farrer memorial trust

FARRER MEMORIAL

TRUSTANNUAL REPORT

2018

FA R R E R M E M O R I A L R E S E A R C H S C H O L A R S H I P F U N D

T H E 2 0 1 8 FA R R E R M E M O R I A L O R AT I O N

2 FARRER MEMORIAL TRUST ANNUAL REPORT 2017

FARRER MEMORIAL RESEARCH SCHOL ARSHIP FUND

The Farrer Memorial Trust was established in 1911 to perpetuate the memory of William James Farrer and to encourage and inspire agricultural scientists. Initially it awarded scholarships for ‘study or research in agricultural problems’. Later it included the delivery of an annual oration and the presentation of the Farrer Memorial Medal to a distinguished agricultural scientist for service rendered in the fields of research, education or administration.

The Director General of the Department of Primary Industries, Mr Scott A Hansen, is the Chairman of the Trust. The other official Trustees are Ms Kate Lorimer-Ward, Deputy Director General, Agriculture NSW of the Department of Primary Industries; Prof. Alex McBratney, Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Sydney; and Dr J C Radcliffe AM, CSIRO, Unley Park, South Australia. The non-official Trustees, representing industry, are: Mr M J R Arnott AM, Boorowa, Ms R Clubb, Araluen, and Mr G Mason, Boorowa.

The Farrer Memorial Travelling Scholarships are designed to support overseas travel by post-graduates enrolled for a PhD on any aspect of field crop research. No scholarships were awarded in 2018.

The 2018 Farrer Memorial Medal was awarded to Dr Reg Lance at the University of Sydney, Faculty of Agriculture and Environment on Monday 12 November 2018. Dr Lance delivered the Farrer Oration entitled ‘Another Man’s Life with Barley’

The text of the 2018 Farrer Memorial Oration is reproduced on page 3 of this report.

The 2018 Farrer Memorial Oration

ANOTHER MAN’S LIFE WITH BARLEY

Dr Reg C.M. Lance


AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the Chairman of the Farrer Memorial Trust, Dr Scott Hansen, Director General, the Department of Primary Industries - New South Wales. To the other members of the Farrer Memorial Trust I would like to thank you for bestowing on me this honour. I am very honoured and humbled to accept it.

I would like to thank the NSW DPI Deputy Director General Kate Lorimer-Ward for her very kind words for my introduction and for the presentation of the Farrer Memorial Medal for 2018.

DedicationsI would like to dedicate this oration to the memories of two of the early United States of America pioneers of barley breeding and genetics: Harry V. Harlan (1882-1944) and Gus A. Weibe (1899-1975).

Harry Harlan. From “One Man’s Life with Barley – The Memories and Observations of Harry V Harlan” (1882 – 1944). Harry was a pioneer of the barley agronomy, breeding and early barley germplasm collections. He conducted research into barley genetics, agronomy and breeding with the United States Department of Agriculture.

Harry Harlan and another early barley researcher Gus Weibe collected barley extensively in Ethiopia.

Gus Weibe also worked with the USDA as a barley breeder and geneticist. From 1946 until 1969 he

was the leader of barley investigations for the USDA Agricultural Research Service. He was responsible for collecting at least 1,100 barley lines and land races from Ethiopia. He was the inaugural President of the International Barley Genetics Symposium. The universal Leaf Rust susceptible variety “Gus” is named after him.

My first exposure to the value of barley germplasm collections was to access some 543 Ethiopia barley lines from the USDA collection (Lance and Nilan 1980). Ethiopia is a major “Centre of Diversity” for barley. The variability in this small collection was truly amazing for many agronomic, grain quality and disease resistance traits. Once harvested I screened the population for “acid-soluble viscosities” and selected low and high lines which formed the basis of my PhD thesis studies; “Genetic studies of the beta-glucan content of barley”. I have been truly indebted to Ethiopia ever since and have wanted to somehow return my appreciation to them by making a contribution using my acquired knowledge and skills. Through a project between the Ethiopian Institute of Agriculture Research (EIAR) and the University of Queensland (led by Prof. David Jordan and Dr Emma Mace) funded by the Bill and Melinda Gate’s Foundation I have now been able to be involved in modernising their breeding programs and in a small way return the favour.

Harry V. Harlan Gus A. Weibe

5TRUSTEES OF THE FARRER MEMORIAL RESEARCH SCHOLARSHIP FUND

IntroductionThe transition from public to private barley breeding in Australia has occurred over the past 15 years. Prior to the formation of the Grains Research and Development Corporation barley breeding programs were funded by State Governments and either pre-Barley Research Council or Barley Research Council funding. The commodity Research Councils were amalgamated into the GRDC which was able to then take on a national role for co-ordination and funding. At this stage there were 6 state based programs; Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. The “Waite Institute” program being at the University of Adelaide’s Waite Campus.

A transition arrangement saw a rationalisation of the NSW and Vic programs to form Barley Breeding Australia. BBA was the association of three nodes; BBA-north, BBA-south and BBA-west from the DAFQ, University of Adelaide and the DAWA programs. A further transition saw the BBA-west program being privatised to InterGrain Pty Ltd. The DAFQ program has transitioned to a pre-breeding program for foliar disease resistances. The BBA-south program has dispersed with some of the breeders taking positions with either AGT or SECOBRA Recherches. The fate of the rest of the Waite Institute program as a pre-breeding entity is uncertain at this point in time.

Elements for a successful barley breeding programSuccessful breeding programs require the integration of a number of disciplines vis-à-vis:

Germplasm:Any program relies on the introduction of new genetic material whether it is a modern cultivar or lines with desirable traits. The continued introduction of new genetic material by such programs as AGG managed within is fundamental to the future growth and sustainability of the breeding programs. My post graduate studies began with utilising land races from Ethiopia. My current research and development into discovering and pyramiding multiple disease resistance genes into modern pre-breeding germplasm relies inexorably on new germplasm found in various international collections. Some of the resistant lines we are currently crossing into our Nested Association Mapping (or NAM) populations are lines which were originally collected and handled by either Harry Harlan and/or Gus Weibe many years ago.

Yield evaluation and agronomic assessment:Previously the Waite and DAFWA programs had extensive investments in people and machinery to plant, manage and harvest extensive yield trials. Now the preference is to outsource to private companies such as Kalyx or Eurofins Agroscience Australia.

Quality laboratories:Fundamental to being able to evaluate grain and/or malting quality is to have access to a laboratory that can have a high throughput of a large number of samples in an efficient manner. Since the mid-80s I have been fortunate to be associated with two superb barley quality laboratories; at the Waite Institute lead by Lesley MacLeod and Sophie Roumeliotis and at the DAFWA laboratory led by Allen Tarr. The professionalism of their laboratories was fundamental to be able to confidently measure grain and malting quality traits and to subsequently select for improvements.

The advent of NIR technologies calibrated to specific quality traits has enabled the non-destructive and accurate estimations of a range of malting and grain quality traits such as protein, malt extract, colour, etc. In the context of improvements in the rate of genetic gain, NIR technologies, I believe, are just as important as molecular genetic technologies.

Disease screening and evaluation: In the past, late stage testing and assessments of the disease resistance profiles of advanced lines was carried out by dedicated pathology groups associated with the breeding programs. It is now imperative that pathology (and molecular genetic) inputs takes place during early generation phases. It is unconscionable to carry forward lines which are susceptible to disease unless they are a part of a germplasm enhancement or parent building program.

Biometricians for advanced statistics: Nearest neighbour analysis was my introduction to modern statistical design and analysis. Now, spatial analyses, partial replicates, mixed models, multi environment trials, unbalanced designs and pedigree analyses have become the norm. The impact on accounting for the estimation of the variety performance of traits is spectacular to say the least. Having a co-ordinated and independent approach to the analysis of plant breeding data and assessment of National Variety Trials is paying major dividends and the GRDC should be congratulated for the role and leadership in funding this program and process.

Molecular genetic marker laboratories: Molecular genetic markers have made a significant impact on the breeding of all crops including barley. The GRDC invested wisely into the Australian Winter Cereal Molecular Marker Program (AWCMMP) and its predecessors for barley and wheat. The peak of research activity in barley culminated in the publication in a special issue of the Australian Journal of Agricultural Research (AJAR Vol 54 Nov 2003). The barley breeding programs have been able to use marker Assisted Selection for a range of traits from; phenological and agronomic, malting


quality to disease and pest resistance and resistances or tolerance to abiotic stress. Early genetic studies have relied on bi-parental populations. Now more complex population structures such as Nested Association Mapping (NAM) or whole breeding program or germplasm collections to undertake Genome Wide Association Mapping and Selection (GWAS) are becoming the preferred mapping and genetic analyses populations.

The DAFWA cereal breeding programs had successfully utilised an F2 progeny method with a reselection phase in the F5 generation. However the time taken from cross to release is considered too long and strategies such as alternate generations, doubled haploids, single seed descent or “speed breeding” are considered more desirable in reducing “cycle time” (the time taken from baking the original cross to using the progeny in a new cross). The combination of Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) with either conventional breeding, Doubled Haploids (DH) or Male Sterile Facilitated Recurrent Selection (MSFRS) improved both the rate of gain but enables the selection of early generation germplasm with higher genetic worth. The problem encountered was that those technologies could not be applied to the whole early generation program.

The “Breeder’s Equation” should be considered as this encompasses the elements for improving the “rate of genetic gain”; “R” where:

R = ih2σp / years per cycle“i” is the selection intensity,h2 is the heritability,σp is the phenotypic variance,ih2σp together represents the response per cycle.

In early generations, off season nurseries or the use of doubled haploids or “speed breeding” greatly speed up the early years and may cut 2 – 3 years off the overall cycle time. The modern imperative is to efficiently and effectively improve the rate of genetic gain. Consideration needs to be made to use the new statistical designs and analyses (including pedigrees) of trials and traits to improve heritabilities and “breeding values”. It is also not good enough to just increase the phenotypic variance but to also orchestrate the increase in the desired direction. Again, more detailed analyses of breeding values will facilitate the choice of parents for new crosses.

Varieties – Malting and Feed: In the 80s the Australian Barley Industry was facing a dilemma. The domestic malting market required lower levels of malt extract, and lowered levels of starch degrading enzymes or diastase and lower fermentability than was now being demanded in the export markets. Domestic brewing used sugar as the adjunct whereas the export brewers used either malt alone or a starch based adjunct such

as wheat, corn or rice. As such the export markets demanded higher malt extract, higher diastase and higher fermentability. At the same time there was an increasing demand for improved protein and beta-glucan modification resulting in lower malt beta-glucan, lower wort viscosities, and optimal levels of “Kolbach Index”.

Chebec was release as a CCN resistant domestic malting type but did not reach the required extract levels so was rejected as a malting variety. Sloop gained an increase in diastase, of about 25% over Schooner, from the Canadian variety Norbert. Its progeny; Sloop SA and Sloop Vic were the result of crosses incorporating CCN resistance and were released after I moved from the Waite Institute to DAFWA. Both varieties endured for some years.

Shannon was a Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus resistance backcross derivative of Proctor. The source of the BYDV resistance was the Yd2 gene from CIho 3208-1. This accession was originally collected. 17-Nov-1923. Shewa Ethiopia by Harry Harlan. This line was the one that was the subject of BYDV research in California (Schaller et al., 1963). Franklin barley was bred by Wayne Vertigan, derived from a cross between Shannon and Triumph and represented the best quality variety in Australia at the time. It was however, too late in maturity to be widely grown on the southern and western mainland. It should be noted that both the malting quality and the Yd2 gene were carried forward to the newer varieties; Baudin, Bass and Flinders.

Dhow was an early maturing, CCN resistant semi-dwarf barley with high extract from the Japanese variety Haruna Nijo. Although it did not reach major acreage, it did give great hope that high yield, good agronomic performance and excellent export malting quality was achievable (Table 1).

Gairdner barley was bred by Ross Gilmore and Peter Portman at DAFWA but when I arrived in WA I was responsible for choosing a malting variety from amongst 5 candidate lines. Eventually it came down to either Gairdner or Fitzgerald with Gairdner being chosen because of higher and more stable thousand grain weight; i.e. the varieties were very similar for medium quality. Gairdner barley endured in WA and the eastern states for many years, probable less to do with yield and agronomic performance but more to do with the fact that it filled a niche that no other barley occupied.

Baudin and Hamelin were release on the same day. Hamelin, was similar to Stirling (which was the target for replacement) for yield and agronomic performance. Hamelin inherited its superior malting quality from the Canadian variety Harrington but it never took off as a variety, probably because it did not command a higher price.


Malting Varieties PBR Granted Feed Varieties PBR Granted

Sloop (1992)* Chebec 1992

Gairdner 1999 Molloy 1997

Dhow 2004 Doolup 1999

Baudin 2003 Fitzgerald 1999

Hamelin 2003 Keel 2001

Vlamingh 2008 Maritime 2006

Bass 2013 Roe 2007

Flinders 2017 Hannan 2010

Banks 2018+(?) Lockyer 2010

Rosalind 2018+(?)

Table 1: Malting and Feed Varieties Released (see also Figure 1).

Baudin was a later maturing variety with superior export malting quality. When test samples were sent to China there was significant disbelief amongst malting customers that an Australian malting variety could achieve such excellent quality. Once accepted it has been in high demand commanding a premium price. As far as disease resistance, Baudin had two weaknesses; powdery mildew and leaf rust. After consultation with the Australian Cereal Rust Control Program at the University of Sydney it was decided to limit the eastern states release to regions where it was less vulnerable and a very prescriptive management package had to be put in place to manage the leaf rust susceptibility. On the south coast of WA farmers sprayed for powdery mildew

but new races appeared which were resistant to the triazole fungicides (https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/barley/management-barley-powdery-mildew-2018).

The release of Bass and Flinders addressed some of the disease susceptibility issues. Flinders contained two resistance genes for powdery mildew resistance from Cooper as well as Rph20 Leaf Rust adult plant resistance.

The last export quality malting varieties (Baudin, Bass, Flinders and Banks) were selected for improved agronomic performance in that they are early maturing, semi-dwarfs with larger grain and stiff straw.

Figure 1: Representation of the release of malting varieties (plus Hindmarsh, a food variety and Rosalind, a feed variety) over the past 70 years in Australia. Those lines with dark blue surrounds are from Farrer Memorial Medal recipients; (Albert Pugsley, Wayne Vertigan, David Sparrow and Reg Lance). There is a significant lineage of varieties through to modern day varieties; Baudin, Banks, Flinders, Dhow, Sloop and Gairdner which have all benefited from their predecessors; Clipper, Prior A, Shannon and Schooner and Franklin.


Graduate Students Co-SupervisedI have been fortunate to be involved in the co-supervision of a number of PhD students; mostly at the Waite Institute of the University of Adelaide, but also with Murdoch University and now the University of Queensland. Most of these have gone onto have very successful careers.

My philosophy for working with post graduates was to empower them to develop their research and critical analyses skills and to think independently but to be able to work as part of a team.

Student Country Degree Description Result Year

Mike Sissons Australia PhD Studies of Barley Limit Dextrinase Passed 1992

Mandy Jenkin Australia PhD The Genetics of Boron Tolerance in Barley

Passed 1993

Jenny Guerin Australia PhD An Investigation of Endopeptidases in Barley

Passed 1993

Ghodratollah Fathi Iran PhD Nitrogen Responses in Barley Passed 1994

Young Won Choe South Korea PhD Molecular Genetic Markers for CCN Resistance in Barley

Passed 1995

Chengdao Li China PhD Molecular Genetic Markers for Malting Quality in Barley

Passed 1997

Tran van Diem Vietnam PhD Water use efficiency and drought tolerance in barley.

Passed 1997

Jason Eglington Australia PhD Isolation, characterisation and mapping of alternative alleles for malt enzymes from the wild barley progenitor, Hordeum spontaneum

Passed 2003

Retinder Gill Australia PhD Male sterile facilitated recurrent selection in barley: genetic gains and recombination

Passed 2009

Dipika Roy Pakistan PhD Understanding the genetics of spot blotch resistance in barley

Confirmed 2018

Zerihun Tadesse Ethiopia PhD Stem Rust and Stripe Rust resistances in “Vavilov Diversity Panel” Wheats, CIMMYT and Ethiopian Bread Wheats breeding lines with Ethiopian races “in situ”.

Commenced 2018

Current and Future Directions in Barley ImprovementCrop improvement is entering a most exciting phase with the integration and implementation of a range of breeding technologies and genetic biotechnologies. We are moving from using bi-parental crosses to identify single genes and quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and employing either simple marker assisted selection (MAS) to facilitate the introgression of desirable genes or to more complex pyramiding of multiple simple/single gene traits.

Furthermore, the integration of MAS with either conventional breeding, doubled haploids (DH), “speed breeding” or Single Seed Descent (SSD) with a crossing technology such as Male Sterile Facilitated Recurrent Selection (MSFRS), couples with both genotypic and phenotypic selection, enables a rapid turnover of cycles with “genetic enrichment” phases

to develop populations with a significantly enhanced desirable traits. The hierarchical structuring of crosses and selection for different traits can be referred to as a Reciprocal Recurrent Selection. Phenotypic selection for specific Traits such as Scald Resistance can be done at different nursery sites and then selected progeny combined at a “home” site through crossing.

Genome screening and gene/allele based decision making: The advent of whole genome screening at competitive prices brings the cost of genotyping to be about the same order of magnitude of the cost of two replicates of entries in a yield trial (~$50) . A further reduction in the genotyping costs for a reduced set or sub-set of markers down to $10 per line will encourage the increase in the more general use of genome wide markers rather than just using markers for gene discovery and early genetic selection intervention.

Table 2: Graduate students


Gene discovery and genetic management softwareFuture breeding management software must include modules for genetic analysis and gene discovery as well as assisting in the design of crossing strategies to enable the pyramiding of desirable combination of traits.

Pedigree / Trait databasesTo be able to make appropriate decisions on the selection of parents for crossing a breeder must have access to a data base with all the traits of interest adequately documented. This should include data on the traits as well as the genes/alleles controlling the traits. A comprehensive pedigree data base permits the understanding of the inheritance of the trait and tracking through populations.

Future Directions for Barley Disease Resistance ImprovementA major weakness of current Australian barley varieties is the lack of resistances vis-à-vis; MRMS, MR or R for the significant leaf diseases. This includes: Leaf Rust (LR), Net Form of Net Blotch (NFNB), Spot Form of Net-Blotch (SFNB, Powdery Mildew (PM) Additionally we should include Scald (SC) Spot Blotch (SB), Stem Rust (SR), Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus (BYDV), Barley Grass Strip Rust (BGYR) and the Quarantine Trait; Stripe or Yellow Rust (YR). We could also add Loose Smut, Cereal Cyst Nematode (CCN), Pratylenchus spp. and Russian Wheat Aphid (RWA) resistances.

Variety Year PBR LR NFNB SFNB PM

Gairdner 1999 S MRMS S SVS

Baudin 2003 VS MSS MSS VS

Commander 2010 S S MSS S

Fairview 2010 SVS MSS S R

Scope 2011 S MR MSS MR

Bass 2013 VS MSS MSS S

Compass 2015 VS MRMS MRMS S

Granger 2015 MR SVS SVS R

Spartacus CL 2016 MR MRMS SVS SVS

Flinders 2017 MRMS MRMS MSS R

La Trobe 2017 MSS MS SVS SVS

Banks 2018 S R MSS S

Rosalind 2018 MR MR MSS SVS

RGT Planet 2018 MR S S R

Ratings R MR MRMS MS MSS S SVS VS

Table 3: Barley disease resistance ratings for foliar diseases in 2018 (Qld et al.)

A few varieties were released with Rph3 resistance to Leaf Rust (LR) but this gene quickly succumbed to new virulent races and varieties such as Bass, and Fitzroy etc. became VS; a very hard lesson to learn. More recently the use of Rph20 from European and North American sources has given a degree of Adult Plant Resistance and MR ratings.

Net Form of Net-Blotch has proven to be a challenging disease. Genes for resistance have been well documented on chromosomes 6H, 4H and 3H. It would appear that broad QTL resistance on 6H is more complicated and may be resolved into three separate loci (Fowler 2018 PhD thesis).

Spot Form of Net-Blotch resistance has proven to be difficult to find and incorporate resistances. The “classic” gene Rpt4 does not gives a low level

of resistance. Newer genes are to be found in germplasm collections. For example, the USDA core barley collection has been screened against four SFNB races, including a race origination from Australia. Resistance to this race can be found in Mongolian land races. The USDA core collection has been genotyped with the older DArT markers so identifying the new gene location should be relatively simple. The Australian Grains Genebank (AGG) has been systematically introducing this collection (and others) over many years.

Powdery mildew resistance has similarly been a significant problem. Our experience was that the use of the mlo gene resulted in yield reductions of 5-10%. However varieties such as Fairview, Granger and RGT Planet maintain resistant or “R” ratings from using the mlo gene.


Figure 2a: Spot form of Net Blotch “Manhatten Plots” from NAM_LR (Fowler et al. 2017 unpubl.)

Figure 2b: Net form of Net Blotch “Manhatten Plots” from NAM_LR (Fowler et al. 2017 unpubl.)

Figure 3a: NAM_DR : Spot Form Net Blotch (SFNB17) populations. 1- 15. Means for reference varieties: Commander (Cmd), Compass (Cms) and La Trobe (LaT) are given for their respective “first” populations. Populations are coded yellow Cmd, dark green Cms and light blue (LaT). Scale is 0-9 where 0 represents more resistance.

Figure 3b: NAM_DR : Net Form Net Blotch (NFNB17) populations. 1- 15. Means for reference varieties: Commander (Cmd), Compass (Cms) and La Trobe (LaT) are given for their respective “first” populations. Populations are coded yellow Cmd, dark green Cms and light blue (LaT). Scale is 0-9 where 0 represents more resistance.

A simplified conceptual scheme is represented in the Figure 4. Disease resistance traits are represented by genes AA, BB, CC and DD. Our starting populations are from Nested Association Mapping (or NAM) populations where specific lines have been crossed once to several “recurrent” parents. A second and third round of crossing to the “Recurrent” parent will effectively result in BC2 populations. Populations are both crossed to “recurrent” parents and then selection progeny are intercrossed in pairs of populations e.g. combining AA and BB to give and AABB genotype (or A/a;B/b; homozygote or heterozygote selection). In a second population development CC will be combined with DD and CCDD (or C/c;D/d selected) selected. Finally AABB and CCDD are combined and ultimately AABBCCDD genotypes are selected. An additional round of inter-crossing may be desirable so the final population in Figure 4 is referred to as BC2 IC2 populations. Selected lines can be taken through several cycles of “Speed Breeding”

The improvement in the overall disease resistance of Australian barley varieties needs to proceed in two phases. The first is the R&D phase of unique gene/allele discovery including gene mapping. The second phase should be the pyramiding of genes into industry agreed “reference” varieties. The integration of a number of breeding and genetic biotechnologies is the preferred path for success. Male sterile facilitated recurrent selection (MSFRS) would be the preferred technology to effectively and efficiently accumulate the desirable disease resistance genes. The Figure 4 represents a simple scheme to illustrate the general approach. The male sterile (msg6-rob-sex1) gene block is back-crossed into the “reference” varieties. The msg6 is used to facilitate the crossing, selection and inter-crossing of populations which have been selected (both genotypically and phenotypically) for different traits. The NAM populations NAM_LR and NAM_DR have used three reference varieties; Commander, Compass and La Trobe. All populations are therefore 50%


reference varieties. Two further crosses to “msg-reference” varieties will result in in BC2 populations. In the simple scheme, two rounds of crossing and inter-crossing would enable the accumulation of genes for four traits. A necessary extension to the simple scheme is to “self” selected F2 derived lines and then progeny test these for yield, agronomic performance as well as grain quality and NIR predicted malting quality. So not only will selections being made for pyramided disease resistance genes,

but the background reference variety germplasm will be selected for overall performance. As an extension to this approach, breeding companies would be encouraged to develop their own propriety “msg –reference” varieties or lines to enable the rapid crossing of “selected elite populations” into their own material. Again, the approach would be for the companies to utilise “speed breeding” of their own selected F2 derived lines for variety development.

Figure 4: Male Sterile Facilitated Recurrent Selection (MSFRS) for Disease Resistance. A simplified schematic representation of the use of MSFRS, Genotypic and Phenotypic selection to Pyramid multiple genes for disease resistance into various “recurrent” parent backgrounds.

ConclusionsBarley breeding and genetics has changed significantly over the past forty years or more. Australian malting varieties have improved to the point where they are competitive in the international market place. The longer term future of the barley industry will need to be competitive in relation to other crops. The industry needs to improve the overall barley disease resistance status both; to protect the yield, agronomic and quality improvements achieved but also to reduce the costs of managing multiple disease susceptibilities.

References“One Man’s Life with Barley – The Memories and Observations of Harry V Harlan” (1882 – 1944) New York, Exposition Press [1957] online from University of Michigan

Dedication: Barley Genetics Newsletter Vol 6 (https://wheat.pw.usda.gov/ggpages/bgn/6/6ded.html)

Lance and Nilan (1980) Screening for Low Acid-Soluble beta-glucan Barleys. BARLEY GENETICS NEWSLETTER, VOL. 10, II. RESEARCH NOTES, p. 41

Schaller, C.W. et al. 1963. Sources of resistance to the yellow dwarf virus in barley. Crop Sci. 3:342-344.

Fowler Ryan (2018) PhD Thesis dissertation “”


INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT The Trustee for Farrer Memorial Research Scholarship Fund

To Members of the New South Wales Parliament

Opinion I have audited the accompanying financial statements of The Trustee for Farrer Memorial Research Scholarship Fund (the Trust), which comprise the Statement of Comprehensive Income for the year ended 31 December 2018, the Statement of Financial Position as at 31 December 2018, the Statement of Changes in Equity and the Statement of Cash Flows for the year then ended, notes comprising a Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and other explanatory information.

In my opinion, the financial statements:

• give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Trust as at 31 December 2018, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards

• are in accordance with section 41B of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 (PF&A Act) and the Public Finance and Audit Regulation 2015.

My opinion should be read in conjunction with the rest of this report.

Basis for Opinion I conducted my audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. My responsibilities under the standards are described in the ‘Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements’ section of my report.

I am independent of the Trust in accordance with the requirements of the:

• Australian Auditing Standards • Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board’s APES 110 ‘Code of Ethics for

Professional Accountants’ (APES 110).

I have fulfilled my other ethical responsibilities in accordance with APES 110.

Parliament promotes independence by ensuring the Auditor-General and the Audit Office of New South Wales are not compromised in their roles by:

• providing that only Parliament, and not the executive government, can remove an Auditor-General

• mandating the Auditor-General as auditor of public sector agencies • precluding the Auditor-General from providing non-audit services.

I believe the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my audit opinion.

Other Information Other information comprises the information included in the Trust’s annual report for the year ended 31 December 2018, other than the financial statements and my Independent Auditor’s Report thereon. The Trustees are responsible for the other information. At the date of this Independent Auditor’s Report, the other information I have received comprise the Statement in accordance with Section 41C(1B) of Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT The Trustee for Farrer Memorial Research Scholarship Fund

To Members of the New South Wales Parliament

Opinion I have audited the accompanying financial statements of The Trustee for Farrer Memorial Research Scholarship Fund (the Trust), which comprise the Statement of Comprehensive Income for the year ended 31 December 2018, the Statement of Financial Position as at 31 December 2018, the Statement of Changes in Equity and the Statement of Cash Flows for the year then ended, notes comprising a Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and other explanatory information.

In my opinion, the financial statements:

• give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Trust as at 31 December 2018, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards

• are in accordance with section 41B of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 (PF&A Act) and the Public Finance and Audit Regulation 2015.

My opinion should be read in conjunction with the rest of this report.

Basis for Opinion I conducted my audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. My responsibilities under the standards are described in the ‘Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements’ section of my report.

I am independent of the Trust in accordance with the requirements of the:

• Australian Auditing Standards • Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board’s APES 110 ‘Code of Ethics for

Professional Accountants’ (APES 110).

I have fulfilled my other ethical responsibilities in accordance with APES 110.

Parliament promotes independence by ensuring the Auditor-General and the Audit Office of New South Wales are not compromised in their roles by:

• providing that only Parliament, and not the executive government, can remove an Auditor-General

• mandating the Auditor-General as auditor of public sector agencies • precluding the Auditor-General from providing non-audit services.

I believe the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my audit opinion.

Other Information Other information comprises the information included in the Trust’s annual report for the year ended 31 December 2018, other than the financial statements and my Independent Auditor’s Report thereon. The Trustees are responsible for the other information. At the date of this Independent Auditor’s Report, the other information I have received comprise the Statement in accordance with Section 41C(1B) of Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.


My opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information. Accordingly, I do not express any form of assurance conclusion on the other information.

In connection with my audit of the financial statements, my responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements or my knowledge obtained in the audit, or otherwise appears to be materially misstated.

If, based on the work I have performed, I conclude there is a material misstatement of the other information, I must report that fact.

I have nothing to report in this regard.

The Trustees’ Responsibilities for the Financial Statements The Trustees are responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards and the PF&A Act, and for such internal control as the Trustees determine is necessary to enable the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, the Trustees are responsible for assessing the Trust’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting except where the Trust will be dissolved by an Act of Parliament or otherwise cease operations.

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements My objectives are to:

• obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error

• issue an Independent Auditor’s Report including my opinion.

Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but does not guarantee an audit conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards will always detect material misstatements. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error. Misstatements are considered material if, individually or in aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions users take based on the financial statements.

A description of my responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located at the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board website at: www.auasb.gov.au/auditors_responsibilities/ar4.pdf. The description forms part of my auditor’s report.

My opinion does not provide assurance:

• that the Trust carried out its activities effectively, efficiently and economically • about the security and controls over the electronic publication of the audited financial

statements on any website where they may be presented • about any other information which may have been hyperlinked to/from the financial statements.

C J Giumelli Director, Financial Audit Services

21 May 2019 SYDNEY

1619

2 JU

N19

farrer memorial trust

Documents